Well, to be fair, Biden does want to take almost every firearm that isn’t a wooden-stocked, bolt-action hunting rifle, or a double-barrel break action shotgun. He’s been very, very clear about that. He also doesn’t have that ability, because such a bill would never make it through the Senate (unless about 15 more seats flipped Democratic, or Dems managed to end the filibuster, which would be incredibly dumb of them), and the House is currently under Republican control. And also there’s Bruen v. NYSPRA to contend with, which is likely going to throw out a lot of bad gun law (see also; Bonta v. Duncan, and Judge Benitez’ blistering rulings against the state of CA).
OTOH, Trump is not a friend to any civil rights, including 2A rights. Nor are Republicans in general, unless the rights you want to exercise involve being a white cisgender heterosexual christian, preferably male. The only civil right Republicans mostly get right–mostly–revolve around 2A issues. Shit, Trump is the reason that bump stocks are banned; he literally said that he was in favor of seizing guns first, and due process second. So you sure as fuck don’t want to vote for him if you think 2A rights are important.
…How did you watch that and come to that conclusion? What he’s proposing is straight-up fascism: let the gov’t do whatever the fuck it wants–or whatever Trump wants–and ignore rule of law. That’s the way he tried to run the entire presidency, and that should terrify everyone that believes in democracy. Or a democratic republic, if you want to be pedantic. Like, seriously, try applying that chain of thought to literally any other right; would you still say that he was on the right side of things?
I mean willing to remove assault weapons. I honestly don’t care how they are removed, the faster the better. Unless you support following strict process over the lives of people, I don’t see a problem with that.
He wasn’t saying that he had a willingness or desire to remove assault weapons. He was talking about disarming people that he didn’t like. Or that law enforcement didn’t like.
And I, personally, have a huge problem with eliminating civil rights, even when you have a majority of people voting to do so.
Well, to be fair, Biden does want to take almost every firearm that isn’t a wooden-stocked, bolt-action hunting rifle, or a double-barrel break action shotgun. He’s been very, very clear about that. He also doesn’t have that ability, because such a bill would never make it through the Senate (unless about 15 more seats flipped Democratic, or Dems managed to end the filibuster, which would be incredibly dumb of them), and the House is currently under Republican control. And also there’s Bruen v. NYSPRA to contend with, which is likely going to throw out a lot of bad gun law (see also; Bonta v. Duncan, and Judge Benitez’ blistering rulings against the state of CA).
OTOH, Trump is not a friend to any civil rights, including 2A rights. Nor are Republicans in general, unless the rights you want to exercise involve being a white cisgender heterosexual christian, preferably male. The only civil right Republicans mostly get right–mostly–revolve around 2A issues. Shit, Trump is the reason that bump stocks are banned; he literally said that he was in favor of seizing guns first, and due process second. So you sure as fuck don’t want to vote for him if you think 2A rights are important.
Holy shit, this is the first time I see trump not only being on the right side of things, but also speaking coherently.
This confirms my conviction that I’m as much in an information bubble as the magas. We all are.
…How did you watch that and come to that conclusion? What he’s proposing is straight-up fascism: let the gov’t do whatever the fuck it wants–or whatever Trump wants–and ignore rule of law. That’s the way he tried to run the entire presidency, and that should terrify everyone that believes in democracy. Or a democratic republic, if you want to be pedantic. Like, seriously, try applying that chain of thought to literally any other right; would you still say that he was on the right side of things?
I mean willing to remove assault weapons. I honestly don’t care how they are removed, the faster the better. Unless you support following strict process over the lives of people, I don’t see a problem with that.
He wasn’t saying that he had a willingness or desire to remove assault weapons. He was talking about disarming people that he didn’t like. Or that law enforcement didn’t like.
And I, personally, have a huge problem with eliminating civil rights, even when you have a majority of people voting to do so.
I don’t remember him saying that, but sure, whatever.